Tercel

I don't saying anything about undetectable magic. It's not undetectable - we experience it all the time. And it's not magic - it's perfectly logically explicable.

I don't think you have the slightest understanding of what my solution entails. On the contrary to what you assert, I think my solution gives me far more understanding of things than yours gives you.

Look at it this way: Any system will have questions, who's answers will be in terms of other things, which will be answered in terms of other things etc. For example, you want to explain consciousness in terms of psychology. You presumably want to explain that in terms of biology. You presumably want to explain that in terms of chemistry and that in terms of atomic physics and that in terms of subatomic physics etc going on down as far as science will ever take you. Ultimately, you are saying "at a base level there are these little particle or wave (or something else again) thingies which combine in the following ways according to these mathematical formula to do this..." and on up the scale till you explain consciousness in terms of all the little thingies. Your "ultimate reality" where further explanation is illegal is those little thingies. If someone says "explain them", you can't... they're just thingies. If someone asks you "what caused the universe" (ie the grand sum of all those little thingies that make up reality) then (if you're anything like all the other atheists I've talked to) your response is going to be that “that's beyond the bounds of explanation” (after all, you can't explain the thingies) or that “the universe is uncaused” (what can possibly cause thingies?).

All systems have points where explanation simply ends. The ultimate goal of any explanation is to explain things in terms of more basic and more basic things until the most basic thing is reached. Now I called your most basic thing "thingies", perhaps the name was not particularly charitable of me, but I think this sums up most materialistic theories of reality: That the ultimate reality consists of little particle thingies which act in accordance with basic mathematical law or some probability distribution and we can explain everything else in terms of these.

What an idealist says is “forget your little particles, the true most basic reality is ‘mind’ or ‘information’”. (Referring to the use of the word as in “Information Theory”) The ultimate goal of explanation is not to explain everything in terms of little particles, but to explain everything in terms of information and information processing units. Thus rather than suggesting matter as the ultimate reality, the idealist is suggesting logic and rationality as the ultimate reality. (The idealist is always going to win any logical argument about the comparative merits of the two systems, because the idealist can simply accuse materialism as being illogical and irrational by comparison) To the idealist, perceptual experience is the ground of reality. (Okay, I’m using a lot of different words for the same thing in the hope that readers will be able to catch on at some stage) That is, at a basic level the “thingies” that everything’s made of and explainable in terms of, are not tiny particles, but awareness. To the idealist, the ultimate reality is an awareness, a perceiving entity. (If that’s not what you think of as “God”, then IMO your idea of “God” is messed up.) I call myself a “dual aspect” idealist because I distinguish between two things: The aspect of perception itself and that of the information which is perceived. eg The subjective “I” is a perceptual unit which receives information through the senses about the external world. The external world doesn’t actually “exist” by itself per see, but exists only as information (ie truth propositions regarding its state) and has the appearance to us of existing because we perceive it. The “existence” of the external world is that it is contained in the mind of God. To the dual-aspect idealist, explanations will go thus: Observation which can be explained: biology in terms of chemistry in terms of physics in terms of math and information theory; and Perception.

The ancient Greeks considered the question “what is everything made of?” One said “fire”, another said “water”. Today the materialists say “little particles” and the idealists say “mind”. Neither one is invoking undetectable magic.

...Though materialism comes close. Idealism says that reality is composed of the only thing that we can actually know for certain exists and which we always experience to be so (That we are experiencing something). Materialism tries to explain stuff in terms of something we can’t even be certain actually exists. Any suggestion that we should adopt materialism by default, I therefore find quite laughable.

Personally, I think idealism is several orders of magnitude better than materialism in terms of parsimony, explanatory power, and logical coherency (there are numerous other considerations all pointing to idealism as being preferable) – which is why I’m an idealist. I basically believe in God because I’m an idealist. I’ve come to be of the opinion that the question of whether you are a Theist or an Atheist boils down solely to whether you’re a rationalistic idealist or a empiricalistic materialist. (and I don’t believe there are any other consistent viewpoints).

Because my position happens to be the emotionally preferable one, instead of considering that as a reason to adopt the viewpoint in the case where you’re unsure which is correct, you’re instead going to pretend that’s a reason for dismissing it out of hand... great...

Tercel

Yes, people have whined at me before for this reason. Try reading what they have to say about the fallacy of composition carefully:

"It must be noted that reasoning from the properties of the parts to the properties of the whole is not always fallacious. If there is justification for the inference from parts to whole, then the reasoning is not fallacious. For example, if every part of the human body is made of matter, then it would not be an error in reasoning to conclude that the whole human body is made of matter. Similiarly, if every part of a structure is made of brick, there is no fallacy comitted when one concludes that the whole structure is made of brick." (italics mine)

Really, our argument is not over fallacies of composition or anything else, but over whether awareness is basic or not. Since I insist that it is, I'm going to reject any theory which tries to explain it as an "emergent property" of other stuff.

However, the whole is not allowed to gain basic properties it's parts didn't have. The wall in their example didn't magically stop being brick, and matter in my argument doesn't magically stop being non-aware when it's added together to make a brain.

Tercel

I hope the lack of a response is a good thing and doesn't mean I was incomprehensible or have broken anyone's mind.

For those interested, Jobar/Albert have started what looks like a promising discussion on idealism and the nature of existence here. The point in question is effectively "what does it mean for something 'to exist'?". The idealists Albert and Jobar (and possibly I'll join in on their side) argue that non-perceived existence is indistinguishable from non-existence while the materialists argue that existence is an objective reality unrelated to experience. (And Jobar still thinks idealism leads to Pantheism... and he's still wrong... )

Godot

So by your line of reasoning, a neuron as the base unit of the brain contains all of the properties of the brain in which it resides. Therefore, 'consciousness' (as a property of the brain) is self-contained within each neuron. Am I right so far?
If such is the case, care to prove it? Does this line of reasoning extend to all neurons, or just those within the brain proper? Is the remainder of the CNS exempt? How about the PNS?

HRG

So if the conclusion is justified, then it's justified ?

Quote:

For example, if every part of the human body is made of matter, then it would not be an error in reasoning to conclude that the whole human body is made of matter. Similiarly, if every part of a structure is made of brick, there is no fallacy comitted when one concludes that the whole structure is made of brick.

This is restricted to the membership relation (in its set-theoretic meaning, aka "made of"), and fails with emergent properties. It regards the whole as the interaction-free set-theoretic unions of its parts.
Based on which arguments, pray tell ?
Who forbids it ?
More seriously, who decides which properties are basic, and upon which objective criteria, different from "I know it when I see it" ?
Is an electron or a nucleon a "brick" ? Obviously not; thus "brickness" is not a basic property, since non-bricks can be joined to form a brick.
Just like gold atoms don't magically stop being colorless when they are added together to make a gold coin ?

I think our differences are rooted in the fact that you reify consciousness - thus making it similar to brickness -, while materialists regard it as a process.

Regards,
HRG.

lpetrich

I'm not a very good artist, but if I could, I'd draw a cartoon showing someone who has built a house and who is puzzled at how to add "houseness", because all that he sees is a big collection of wood and bricks and plaster and nails and such.

This does not mean that there is no special mind-stuff, of course; just that the term "mind" does not imply the existence of such a stuff.

Tercel

Not really, no. My line of argument is that matter is not conscious, it's not in the neurons, it's not in the physical brain. I'm a dualist and believe that perception is a non-material, non-physical, basic thing. You materialists believe that consciousness is some sort of property that is manifested in the "real" reality of that physical brain... whereas as an idealist, I believe that physical brain only exists as sensory input to the "real" reality of conscious perception.

WinAce

But perception itself is rooted in complex brain activity. Don't tell me you've never slept, been under general anesthesia or simply blacked out.

lpetrich

Metaphysical idealism seems to me to be a "Matrix" view of the Universe, as in that well-known movie.

Are we all a bunch of disembodied minds that float around and hallucinate all day?

Lobstrosity

Sure, you can use this out...when justified. The problem is that you are not justified. Your statement isn't equivalent to "if every part of a structure is made of brick, then the whole structure is made of brick." It is instead equivalent to "if every part of a structure is not made of brick, then the whole structure is not made of brick." This latter assertion is false for it is poorly posed. Are the electrons and protons within the brick to be considered made of brick? If not, then do we conclude that the whole structure is not made of brick? This is the same problem you run into with the brain. Just like when we look at a brick close enough we see components that are not brick, when we look at the brain close enough we see components that are not conscious. This in no way implies that a brick is not a brick, nor does it imply that the brain is not conscious. The argument is not valid.

And matter is not alive. Life is not in the neutrons or protons or electrons that make up our bodies. Given that, how is it that we as a whole can have something (e.g. life) not present in the constituent parts? Maybe it's because the notion that the whole cannot have properties not found it its constituents is a fallacy. You need to understand the concept of coupling, Tercel. Not everything in this world can be treated linearly--if you try to calculate everything using the superposition principle you're in for a nasty surprise.

Maybe your problem is that you're an idealist with regards to something that's hardly ideal. I could be an idealist too: the Earth is a perfect sphere that lies in the center of an impurity-free universe. Furthermore, everything in this universe was made specifically for the benefit of man, who happens to be a perfect creature in all possible regards. As such, I reject any theories or empirical data that go against any of these assumptions. I am teh smart. So where's the flaw in this reasoning? Why is my idealism unjustified whereas yours is perfectly reasonable?